abstract: |

Skip Navigation

Dear Mr. Einwechter: Thank you for taking the time to write an article in the current issue of the Statesman in response to my brief article ["The Incomplete Program of the National Reform Association," July - August 2004]. It was a clearly written, cogently argued, and well-researched statement of your personal position. It did not respond to my article. I suggested that the NRA, as an organization, had to sit down, think through, and clearly define certain aspects of its basic Statement of Purpose; instead, we read the personal statement of one of the NRA's most prominent spokesmen. Surely you must see that when the NRA finally musters the support of a large majority of the American people, dedicated enough and informed enough to support implementation of the organization's Statement of Purpose, the result of implementation will look quite different if it is on a theonomic basis, a conventional Calvinist basis (the classic model for which is 2d Reformation Scotland), or for that matter a Wesleyan/Arminian basis (a little hard to envision, but very probably not theonomic). How can people intelligently rally to th e NRA's standard, when they do not have a clear statement of what that standard rests upon? That the present NRA carries forward the views of its predecessors (like David McAlister) merely suggests that the NRA, from the beginning, has never managed to articulate with adequate particularity its fundamental principles. Unfortunately, it looks as if it cannot do so today.

I do regret that you took my use of the words "honesty," etc., to suggest that the NRA's members are dishonest or hiding some agenda. I did not mean that at all. What I was trying to say was that the NRA, as an organization, has never sat down and honestly worked through its presuppositions: in other words, to put it bluntly, that collectively it is not dishonest but rather muddled-headed (and this as opposed to many individual members of the NRA, who courageously and clearly put forth their personal opinions in such a way that no one can ever accuse them of misrepresentation or concealment). Thanks for your attention.

- Bob Emery

New York

Editor's Response: Dear Mr. Emery: My article ["The Unwavering Program of the National Reform Association," July - August 2004] was more than my personal statement, as it was based in part on official organizational statements. I also think that it, along with your letter, will have the effect of stimulating thought and discussion in the NRA.

But when you argue that the NRA does not have a distinct enough Statement of Purpose so that it keeps people from intelligently rallying to our standard, I do not believe that you are considering the current state of the evangelical and Reformed world. Almost none embrace national confessionalism, almost all reject the written law of God as the standard for nations, and natural law pluralism is the reigning paradigm. In the midst of this apostasy, the NRA's standard is distinct: we call our fellow believers to rally around the doctrine of Christ's kingship as expressed in the glorious doctrine of His mediatorial reign; and we call upon the church to return to the written Word of God--biblical law-- as the sole authority in all questions of a political and civil nature. This standard, that you think is unclear, is frighteningly clear to most evangelicals. If you believe in the mediatorial reign of Christ over the nations and in the authority of biblical law over the nation and magistrate, why can't you rally to this cause?

The difficulty of developing a comprehensive, clear-cut position on the law of God beyond the commitment to biblical law, is not a problem for the NRA alone, but was a problem experienced at the Westminster assembly and currently by all the Reformed churches. Calvin himself was divided on the issue of civil law. In his Institutes, he set aside specific Mosaic legislation on civil law for natural law, but in his commentaries and sermons he called on the civil magistrate to obey the law of God in Scripture in carrying out his duties in society and civil law. Can you show us one Reformed church or organization that has set forth their position on the law of God with the clarity you are asking of us? This would be helpful.

I say the NRA is at work on trying to advance the discussion on God's law. Your article was timely because it brought the issue to the foreground. I cannot promise you that the current NRA board will produce the definition that you hope for; there are differences among us. But who is surprised by that? Again, look around you. The church has largely set aside biblical law, and we are trying to recover it. Theonomy itself is a position that needs further clarification and modifications. In my study, it seems as though many of the early American Covenanters were, essentially, theonomists. Much work remains to be done. The NRA is one Christian organization that is trying to promote that work.

Thank you again for the challenge presented in your article. I believe that it will have a good effect on the NRA and foster attention to the issues and questions that you raise.

back to top